Tag Archives: gop candidates for president

Post navigation

In the week or so that’s passed since Trump secured the official GOP nomination as their candidate for President, I’ve watched that party tear itself to shreds.

As I noted in my last column, “The GOP is in reality the PSP — the Perpetually Stupid Party”.

For years they’ve ignored their inherent base supporters, traditional conservatives, instead treating them like redheaded step-children. The unrest of that base has long been obvious, as evidenced by the failures of McCain and Romney in their own presidential bids, not to mention how tight Bush’s two contests were against incredibly inept opponents, Gore and Kerry.

Did the PSP learn anything from all those years of declining support? No, they did not. And the result is the success of the populist uprising led by Trump.

Like it or not, he is the official candidate of the Republican Party.

So, what’s been the response of the usual suspects, the Establishment GOP hacks that have led that party ever-leftward? To throw an extreme hissy-fit, like a passel of spoiled brats. Is Trump a great candidate? Heck no! I spent a year pointing out some of his obvious flaws. But he IS their candidate, won fairly and squarely.

His opponent is Her Royal Arrogance Clinton, probably the single most beatable Dem/socialist in a couple of decades; a woman with more baggage than a cruise liner.

But instead of rallying around their official nominee, the PSP is indulging in a nihilistic paroxysm of pique and self-destruction. Many of the former candidates are refusing to honor their pledge to support the eventual victor of the primary, a pledge that Trump finally and begrudgingly did sign. Where’s their honor now? At least one prominent member of the PSP – Meg Whitman – has gone so far (as of this writing) as to actually endorse Clinton. Amazing!

The end result is that the PSP has set Trump as the target of their circular firing squad.

The possible upside to all this turmoil is that we could hopefully see the GOP, like a phoenix arising from the ashes of its own destruction, change its errant ways and rededicate itself to actually acting like it believes in the principles it claims to support.

The downside is that it’s taking place at the worst possible time, when the Dem/socialist candidate is a person so unfit for office, and whose policies are so destructive, that the country might never recover if she wins the election.

Neither will John Kasich, Bernie Sanders, Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, nor the Green Party’s Jill Stein. That’s just a fact of life, and we’d all better get used to it.

In the 2008 election pitting McCain against Obama, I voted for Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate. I also quit my lifelong membership in the GOP and re-registered as “Decline To State”, this state’s version of Independent. That was because I saw McCain as only very slightly less “progressive” than Obama, a view I still hold to this very day.

There was also the potential benefit in a McCain loss that the GOP – which had already meandered to the Left over the post-Reagan years – would learn a valuable lesson from such a defeat and mend their errant ways.

Well, that clearly didn’t happen, as the Establishment GOP kept to their chosen path, the result of which has finally been a populist uprising resulting in the nomination of outsider Donald Trump as their nominee. Good, bad, or indifferent, that’s the way it is.

I wish I could go into that polling booth in November and cast my ballot for someone else, but I can’t if I want my vote to have any actual relevance, and wishing I could won’t change anything. If wishes were horses, beggars would be riding instead of walking.

The further reality is that even if Trump hadn’t thrown his hat into the ring I’m not sure I would have been able to vote for a real conservative anyway. Over the last decade plus, the Establishment GOP has constantly crept ever-further leftward, scorning the true conservatives in their ranks. How else to explain the nominations of John McCain and Mitt Romney? That, too, is a fact, and further proof that the Establishment GOP is not just stuck on stupid, but super-glued in place. The GOP is in reality the PSP – the Perpetually Stupid Party.

So where does that leave us?

The two major parties have named their candidates, and one thing we know for certain: come January either Clinton or Trump WILL be taking the oath of office as President.

In Trump we have an unknown. A guy who CLAIMS to be conservative, yet has a record of backing leftist causes and policies. An unmitigated blowhard. Someone not familiar with the details and minutiae of policy. Absolutely no record when it comes to elective experience or voting history.

Basically, he’s a pig in a poke. We don’t really know what we’d be getting. He could end up being great; he could end up being an absolute disaster. His presidency could fall somewhere in between. Who knows?

His choice of Mike Pence as his running mate gives me a sound basis for the hope that he’ll follow through on his vow to select solid conservatives as his appointees, both judicial and otherwise. And judicial appointments, particularly to the Supreme Court, are a huge but neglected issue this election.

Then there’s Clinton, certainly not an unknown. In fact, we know FOR CERTAIN what we’d be getting with her, and frankly, it’s an outright disaster for this country. An unindicted federal criminal with a pathological bent for lying. A scandal-ridden crone married to a convicted perjurer and accused serial rapist who’d be re-occupying the White House. A corruptocrat whose policy decisions can seemingly be bought with large “donations” to her sham “foundation”. A woman who can’t point to a single policy success in her term as Secretary of State, and whose big claim to qualification for the office is that she has a uterus. A leftist ideologue who’s vowed to continue, and even expand upon, the disastrous policies of Obama. A die-hard anti-gun fanatic. A woman who will, with absolutely no doubt, appoint the most leftist jurists she can find to nominate to the Supreme Court, changing the dynamic of that institution for decades to come.

For me the defining moment came while I watched FBI Director Comey spend 14 minutes detailing Clinton’s criminal actions, then spend about 1 minute declaring that the FBI would recommend that she NOT be prosecuted for those actions. I was absolutely stunned. As far as I was concerned, that moment defined the depth of the corruption of the Dem/socialist party, and the Obama/Clinton cabal in particular. It’s an outright and blatant corruptocracy.

So there you have it. A summary of two candidates, one of whom WILL be the next President of these United States. It’s certainly clear, at least to me, that no matter how bad a President Trump MAY turn out to be, Clinton would DEFINITELY be orders of magnitude worse.

We conservatives pride ourselves on voting our conscience and our principles. But I think there’s one overriding principle that overshadows all others: the ultimate future of our country. I believe this is the single most important presidential election at least in my lifetime.

I’ve made my decision. In spite of everything I’ve written over the last year, in light of the issues I’ve outlined here I’ve decided to cast my vote for Trump.

In the literature of Ancient Greek tragedy, the playwrights would often plot their characters into a corner, an irresolvable situation in which doom was the inevitable outcome until lo and behold! A god or other supernatural character would descend to the stage in a chariot and resolve the problem, saving the hero from disaster. That plot device was called deus ex machina, which translates literally into “god from the machine”, the “machine” being the chariot. Today we call it a “chariot of the gods”.

As a result of the Indiana primary election, both of Donald Trump’s GOP opponents, Cruz and Kasich, have “suspended” their campaigns. That means that Trump is now unopposed in his quest for the nomination and barring some unforeseen event of epic proportion, he’s going to be the GOP presidential nominee in November.

On the Dem/socialist front Hillary Clinton’s lead over her sole opponent, self-avowed socialist Bernie Sanders, is virtually insurmountable barring her indictment for federal charges stemming from her criminal misuse of classified information on her illegal web server.

So, as an independent conservative, this November I’m going to be faced with an absolutely appalling choice. I can vote for a man I despise, who has absolutely no record of conservatism (in fact, quite the opposite) and no experience in public service; a loud-mouthed egotistical buffoon; a charmless amateur driven by self-aggrandizement and megalomania… Trump.

Or I can vote for a scheming, lying, corrupt woman who is the worst kind of Big Government leftist and has committed federal crimes affecting national security… Clinton.

Or I can vote for neither of them.

If ever the political stage of this country needed a deus ex machina, now is that time, more than ever before.

The dog days of the Summer of 2017 have been especially brutal, with sweltering heat and humidity turning Washington, D.C. into a miasma.

The election of 2016 was one for the books. The expected “coronation” of Hillary Clinton never took place, her ambitions for election to the highest office of the land crushed when the FBI investigation into her emails resulted in her indictment on federal misdemeanor charges. Only a last-minute pardon granted by outgoing President Obama saved her from a lengthy trial and probable conviction.

When self-avowed Socialist Bernie Sanders became the official Democrat party nominee due to a rabid outpouring of support from the ultra-left fringe, the GOP – now insulated from the threat of a Hillary candidacy – reverted to form and coalesced around Establishment candidate Jeb Bush.

Defeated in the primaries, Donald Trump declared himself a candidate as an Independent. On election night this dynamic played itself out to its finale, with Sanders getting little support from other than the ultra-left, Bush getting little from any other than the GOP loyalists, and the remainder going to Trump. In an election cycle with a record-low turnout, that happened to be enough to give Trump the win.

Now, six months after the inauguration, Trump sits at his desk in the Oval Office brooding over his next moves. He’d tried to push through his promise to build a border wall between the US and Mexico with the stipulation that he’d stick Mexico with the bill, but he’d immediately run into another “wall” he hadn’t anticipated.

Congress had refused to create any legislation authorizing such a project, and with no ties to either of the parties in control of Congress, Trump found himself with no leverage at all with which to proceed. His request for such legislation was simply DOA. The only thing he got was a gift from the President of Mexico of a bottle of fine agave tequila, with a sardonic note of congratulations.

Along similar lines, when he’d tried to find some way to suspend the automatic granting of US citizenship to “anchor babies”, there was no actual way to effectuate his efforts. He couldn’t do it by executive order, because citizenship is a state of being, not a document issued by a government agency to which he could issue orders. He again asked Congress for appropriate legislation, and ran into the exact same problem he faced regarding his proposed wall: Congress ignored him.

In August of 2015 he’d said that he’d support a tax increase on the “ultra-rich” – heresy to conservatives – and when he’d proposed the idea to Congress he got strong support from the Democrat side of the aisle, and strong opposition from the GOP, again with the same result: no action from Congress.

Last month’s meeting with Putin had gone badly. They didn’t click on a personal level, a problem right out of the box. He’d tried to insist that Putin call off his dogs, but the Russian just stared at him with those beady eyes. It was infuriating! “All right, so he got a little annoyed at what I said”, Trump thought. “But I was calling his actions ‘stupid’, not him personally. Can’t he tell the difference?”

He’d tested another policy initiative a couple of months ago, a sort of trial balloon. He’d instructed our ambassadors to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to present to those countries bills for our costs in protecting their countries militarily, including from the Saddam Hussein invasion. After all, they have virtually unlimited wealth from their oil production, and we provide their military support. It was for only $1.5 trillion! Who’d have thought they’d react the way they did? The Saudis even insisted Trump recall our ambassador to that country. Imagine! Looks like that balloon popped…

The backlash from his announcement last week that he was sending the 82nd Airborne Division to the Middle East to fight ISIS utterly confounded and perplexed him. If there was any actual personification of actual evil on this planet, they were it. So how could so many people – not only in the electorate, but in Congress – not see that we had to send in the troops?

“Quagmire?”, he grumbled to himself. “What does that even mean? I can tell those generals how to win that war. And anyway, if they don’t do it my way, and win that damn war, I’ll just fire them.”

Seeing that the sun was setting, he rose from the chair and left the room. Tomorrow was another day.

The critics use terms such as “demagogic ideologue” with “no specific policy proposals”, while the cheerleaders say things like “savior of the country” and “America’s best hope”.

Name that candidate.

Yes, that’s right. As painful as it is to write, and maybe even more painful to read, I’ve come to the conclusion that all the rabid hysteria in support of Donald Trump reminds me of nothing so much as the same kind of rabid hysterical support Clinton gets from those on the Left.

In both cases, their supporters have to convince themselves that their candidate’s history is irrelevant. In Clinton’s case, a boatload of scandals, improprieties, and corruption. In Trump’s case a checkered past of being literally all over the map on the political issues, being a big monetary supporter of the “other” party, being a member of several parties other than the GOP, and always serving his own self-interest first and foremost, before any other consideration (in that respect being very Clintonian).

A couple of weeks ago I wrote my first essay on the Trump phenomenon, and I have to say that I was very surprised by the pushback I got from several fellow bloggers and web-friends whom I normally consider to be very reliable conservatives. In that essay, and the one I wrote on the night of the first GOP debate, I pointed out many of Trump’s flaws as a candidate, including his many character failings. Yet many of these people, whom I generally consider to be very level-headed, were willing to simply ignore all of this because they’d either fallen under his spell, or convinced themselves that his basic character – his nature – didn’t matter in this instance.

I remember the 1996 election cycle in which Bill Clinton ran for a second term, and how that was the first time in the modern political era that “character” became a notable issue. Since that time, it’s one the GOP and conservatives raise regularly in criticizing their opponents, but somehow, this time, in the case of Trump they’re more than willing to ignore that very same quality when the question is directed at Trump, while at the same time using it to disparage Hillary Clinton.

What is one to make of this… inconsistency?

Here’s my assessment of their characters: both are egotistical megalomaniacs with a strong sense of entitlement; both are populist ideologues – he allegedly on the Right, she clearly on the Left – who are long on populist rhetoric and short on policy specifics; both have histories of political expediency to advance their own self-interests; both have improperly exercised their personal power, at the clear expense of others and with utter disregard for the consequences to others, merely to further their personal positions and ambitions; both are cynical manipulators; both have flip-flopped on their professed positions on policy issues; and neither one is trustworthy.

According to reliable polling data (Quinnipiac) each of them enjoys broad support from their respective ends of the political spectrum, but that support is undermined by their low ratings for honesty, likeability, and trustworthiness. In other words, a mile wide and an inch deep.

Trump is the Right’s Hillary.

That’s my assessment of their characters; my opinion. Now, if you’re a Trump supporter, look deeply into your own heart of hearts, and ask yourself these questions: Am I wrong? Do youtrust Trump? Is he someone you’d have over to your home for dinner? And if the answers to those questions are “No”, then how are you any different from a Clintonista?

If next November’s election night rolls around and we’re looking at a picture like the one at the top of this essay, this country is well and truly screwed.

The first GOP debate is still going on while I write this essay, but right out of the box, the FIRST question asked of the panel by Chris Wallace proves my thesis in my last essay about “The Donald”.

When asked if there was anyone on the floor who could NOT pledge to support the eventual GOP nominee, and forsake running an independent third-party campaign, guess who was the only candidate to raise his hand?

Anyone?… anyone?… Bueller…?

That’s right; gasbag Donald Trump.

It’s a-a-a-a-a-ll about him as far as he himself is concerned. He flat-out said that the only GOP nominee he could “support” was himself if nominated, even after Chris Wallace pointed out that a third-party campaign by him would almost assuredly end up in a Clinton presidency.

Does anybody doubt anymore what I wrote about this lunatic ten days ago?

UPDATE: The debate is finished and Trump managed to live down to, if not exceed, my lowest expectations. When asked any questions, he had absolutely no specific answers, nor any actual policy proposals to put on the table, as opposed to EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE there on the stage. His only responses were his usual nonsense and bluster. It was actually pretty funny watching his face get redder and redder as the debate went on. This guy’s a nincompoop. An absolute imbecile.

He made Jebbie, Christie, Huckabee and Kasich look good by comparison, guys I actually usually can’t stand.

I’ll preface by stating that I’m not a member of any political party; I’m a Constitutional conservative, and if I were to be a member of any party, I suppose it would be the Tea Party, though they don’t actually have a formal “party” per se.

In this very blog, I’ve mocked and satirized Crazy Uncle Joe Biden several times as being the Clown Prince of Politics, but I think he’s now been deposed, proving the Left doesn’t have a monopoly on political lunacy.

Not very “presidential”. Is this why he wears a hat all the time now?

Exhibit A: “The Donald”, the guy with the world-class comb-over, proving one can be tacky and tasteless in appearance while at the same time exhibiting absolutely no discernible decorum or political acumen.

As George Santayana famously noted, “Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it”, and we can see that play out right now as Trump repeats the bombastic campaign of another eccentric billionaire with delusions of grandeur, Ross Perot, the guy who’s single-handedly responsible for us ever having to say the words “President Clinton”… at least, so far.

There have been other hyperbolic populists in the last few years who have enjoyed their moment in the sun before fading out of the limelight, Chris Christie coming immediately to mind. What is it about these guys that gives them such popularity – Trump currently being the GOP candidate with the highest individual poll numbers – in spite of their political record? Christie is a Northeastern “moderate” with a very mixed record on traditional conservative principles, who famously lauded Obama. Trump’s record on political contributions actually favors Democrats, including Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton; he’s been registered as other than Republican several times over the last couple of decades, even running for President as a Reform Party candidate. He’s advocated restrictions on “assault weapons”, and increasing wait periods.

I think it’s pretty clear that Trump has virtually no chance at all of ever being elected President. In fact, if he were to somehow miraculously win, and if he tried to govern as he claims he would, he’d be either the most ineffective, or the worst, President in American history, as his “style” would be more suited to a dictator than the President of a republic.

I also think it’s instructive that many of the same people who have been criticizing Obama for years about his lack of experience before being elected President would actually support Trump, a man with even less… in fact, none at all.

So why all the hoopla? I think it’s because Trump – and Christie before him – personifies an approach to the arena that they wish was more prevalent in the legitimate candidates of their party: a willingness to be confrontational with a news media that largely and openly supports their opponents; aggressive advocacy on certain hot-button issues of the moment; and a perception of independence from vested party interests.

That last is a very key element, I believe. Sadly, the GOP of the post-Reagan era has become infamous for claiming to support traditional conservative principles, and then promptly abandoning them as working priorities as soon as they win the elections. There was a brief resurgence of conservatism during the Gingrich era, but it very quickly dissipated.

Instead, we’ve seen a constant parade of lackluster “moderate” candidates who can’t generate any enthusiasm among the conservative base of the party. In fact, on a personal note, the 2008 nomination of John McCain was the final straw that caused me to renounce my own membership in the GOP of almost 40 years.

Even at the congressional level, we’ve see that same problem as recently as last year’s election, during which the GOP candidates ran on a platform of directly confronting Obama’s policies and fiats only to promptly abandon taking any real action as soon as they took office and the majorities of both chambers of Congress.

I think Trump has been imbued with a kind of representational fantasy, just as John Wayne was perceived as a “hero” because of all his exploits in westerns and war movies, though he never served a day in uniform or heard a shot fired in anger. He represents what they want that party’s legitimate candidates to do, and be like, and support.

All of which leads me to the conclusion that the fault for Trump’s current popularity can be laid right at the doorstep of the Establishment GOP itself, for failing to comprehend the unrest among its own claimed “base”.

UPDATE: Recently released polling data by Quinnipiac shows Trump being the worst performer of any of the current Republican candidates in a matchup in the General Election, being soundly beaten by Clinton, Biden and even self-avowed socialist Bernie Sanders. Not only beaten, but solidly thumped. To quote the poll: “Trump has the worst favorability rating of any Republican or Democrat”.

Now that the reality of Obamacare is setting in, we can all be mindful of the fact that we can thank Chief Judas John Roberts for the pain. To refresh memories, it was Roberts who cast the deciding vote when the law was facing its challenge at the Supreme Court, and who single-handedly imposed it on us by deciding that contrary to what even its proponents stated, the IRS penalty for non-compliance wasn’t, in fact, a “penalty” but a “tax”, and therefore constitutional.

Reportedly, he did so with his judicial legacy in mind, concerned that his Court would be treated by history as being too “ideological” or too “conservative”. Therefore, he found a way to throw the decision to the liberals.

In other words, he showed “moderation”.

And what was the result of that “moderation”? Well, the Left still hates him… but now the Right does, too.

What’s my point in revisiting this history? To underscore the magnitude of the mistake the Establishment GOP is making right now in pursuing the same “logic” in their approach to politics as Roberts did in his approach to his legacy.

I first started The Island in 2006, and in the lead-up to the 2008 elections I was vocal and vehement about my refusal to support any candidates who would knuckle under on certain fundamental principles. I don’t consider myself an “extremist” or “fringe wacko bird”. I’m a traditional conservative.

Now here we are, in 2013, with the Establishment GOP essentially at war with conservatives, castigating and denigrating the Tea Party and others who refuse to go along with their eternal “compromising” and “moderation”, even to the extent that Karl Rove and others are forming PACs specifically tasked with targeting and defeating conservative opponents in electoral primaries.

Who are they going to replace those votes with? They’re putting themselves in the position of relying on the same votes the Dems already have locked up. This is a strategic error of the first order.

Nowhere was this better illustrated than in last week’s gubernatorial race in Virginia, pitting uber-leftist Terry McAuliffe against conservative Ken Cuccinelli, a Tea Party favorite. The Democrat Party poured a tsunami of money into the race, while the GOP refused to give Cuccinelli anything more than token support. The result was a squeaker win by McAuliffe who managed to eke out a 2% margin of victory in a race Cuccinelli could have easily won, thereby assuring that the GOP was once again able to successfully snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Let me emphasize the point of that story: THE ESTABLISHMENT GOP WOULD RATHER SEE A SOCIALIST WIN THAN SUPPORT A CONSERVATIVE.

Instead of busily “compromising” with the Dem/socialists, you’d think they’d be trying to find some common ground with conservatives. Instead, they’re setting fire to their own ship while they’re in the middle of the ocean.

For a couple of years now we’ve been hearing how Marco Rubio is the “new face of conservatism” that the GOP seems to be pinning its hopes on for a resurgence in electoral victories at the national level.

He’s a “person of color” (to use the socialists’ terminology) with truly “conservative” chops, we’re told.

Then why is he the GOP point man on yet another round of amnesty for illegal aliens?

We’ve been down this road before. This is just a rerun of the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli debacle in which we were promised all kinds of things — “border security”, employment checks, etc. — in return for a “one time, never to be repeated” amnesty. It was going to cure ALL our illegal alien problems.

Well, the only thing we EVER got was the amnesty for over 3 MILLION illegal aliens. And here we are, once again, 27 years later with over THREE TIMES AS MANY illegal aliens as we had then.

Reagan later regretted signing it into law as one of the biggest mistakes of his presidency.

Are we going to be stupid enough to repeat history? “Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it” – Santayana.

Yet here we are, once again, hearing the same old same old. SSDD. Rubio is standing there as the face of the “Gang of Eight” – yet another “gang” that nobody elected to anything – supposedly “negotiating” a gargantuan public policy without any public input or debate. Who elected these eight guys to decide how the entire country is going to treat the problem of our invasion by illegal aliens?

According to Rubio, the illegal aliens will have to face some minor bureaucratic requirements and pay a $2000 “penalty”, after which they can be “legalized”, get green cards, and ultimately apply for full citizenship. Which means voting rights.

Oh, brother… $2000 in “penalties”?… That’s IT????????

Hell, here in Commiefornia you can get fined more than that for a traffic offense. This is total bullpuckey. And, of course, the same old empty promises about the “border security” that not only never happens, but can’t even be defined by any measurable standard anymore, thanks to the amnesty apologists from both parties currently (and previously) in office.

The Republicans who keep trying to foist this nonsense upon us keep claiming that this horde of under-skilled uneducated people is somehow going to magically turn into future conservative/GOP voters if we simply show some sympathy and “understanding” and let them “come out of the shadows”. What planet are these fools living on?

This group is EXACTLY the demographic of future Democrat/socialist voters by a HUGE margin: scofflaws, unskilled, uneducated, high crime rate, high illegitimate birth rate, low income, many (if not most) of them from ethnic minorities. Prime Democrat subjects. Please… THESE are future conservatives?

Which brings us back to our title, “Marco Rubio, Judas Goat”. Any self-professed “conservative” who stands for amnesty – under whatever guise or alias – is a Judas Goat, frankly, for exactly the reasons I’ve delineated above. Just like the animal Judas Goat who leads his fellow goats into the abattoir to slaughter, Rubio and fellow “conservatives” who promote amnesty for illegal aliens are leading this entire country to destruction.

As far as Rubio ever getting elected President: fuggeddaboudit. His career as a “conservative” is over. That’s proved to be a complete lie. He’s no more “conservative” than that turncoat “maverick” McCain.

ANYTHING that “legalizes” illegal aliens is amnesty. Period. And any purported “conservative” who supports it is no true conservative at all.

Well, it looks like the Golfer-in-Chief won a second term, much to the country’s detriment. It’s been an interesting election, to say the least. Here are some thoughts.

I have to admit, I called this one wrong. Even though the dynamic was very similar to the Reagan/Carter race of 1980, the outcome was completely reversed. I think several factors came into play. First, of course, is that Romney’s no Reagan as far as political skill and presentation. I also think that Romney made a very bad call in not making Benghazi-Gate a very major election issue, right along with Fast & Furious.

But there’s another issue that’s developed in the intervening 32 years that doesn’t portend at all well for the future of this country: the emergence of class warfare as a major political football, and the fact that almost 50% of this country’s populace is on some form of the government dole. I’ve written several times that when that percentage hits 50%+1 vote, this country’s doomed. I’ve seen nothing to change my mind. We’re in very serious trouble.

* * *

Now that The Amateur has won re-election, is he going to continue to Blame Bush for all this country’s problems? At what point will he start to accept responsibility for this lousy economy… if ever? Or will Biden, if he runs to replace Obama, decide to start blaming… Obama? How long can they keep pointing at Bush? They’ve already set a new world’s record in that event.

* * *

Fortunately, the GOP has retained control of the House. That means Darryl Issa is still his committee’s chairman. I predict that when the new Congress is seated in January, he’ll be aggressively pursuing AG Holder on the Fast & Furious debacle, and giving Obama some real problems on the Benghazi-Gate mess. I know Obama wanted to run out the election clock on that problem – and with the help of the lamestream media, he did – but it hasn’t gone away. I think it’s barely started.

And again, with the GOP retaining control of the House it’s going to be pretty hard for him to enact what’s sure to be an even more radical socialist agenda, now that he no longer has to answer to an electorate.

* * *

The destructive effect of “identity politics” and polarization can’t be overstated, and it’s a pernicious and cynical aspect that the leftists have used to full effect. The “Hispanic bloc” and the “black vote” are glaring examples of groups that vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, even to their own detriment.

Frankly, I don’t see this situation improving in the foreseeable future; if anything, it’s going to get worse. The welfare policies of the Democrats as initiated by LBJ have essentially enslaved the blacks on the new plantation of government dependency. The devil’s bargain Reagan entered into in 1986 when he signed into law the Simpson-Mazzoli “one time, never to be repeated” amnesty for illegal aliens didn’t solve our illegal alien problem; it merely opened the door even wider with the implied promise to new border-crossers that if they can somehow merely wait out the clock they, too, will be rewarded with citizenship and all the government freebies that come with it.

* * *

The biggest danger regarding the Judiciary is that Scalia – the oldest of the conservatives – will either retire or die. I think he’s too motivated to retire for anything other than health reasons, so we have to pray for his continued good health. The re-elected Commissar will be making other judicial appointments, though, giving him the opportunity to pack the lower courts with like-minded socialists.

That leaves it up to the Senate GOPers to finally – FINALLY – start playing the confirmation game by the same “rules” that their Dem counterparts use, meaning there are none. Time to take off the gloves and play hardball!

Will they do it? Who knows? The jury’s out on that one.

* * *

True and effective democracy is hard work. Over the years I’ve written several essays on the topic, including “Bread and Circuses”, in which I’ve pointed out that we’re heading on a fatal course that, if uncorrected, will lead to the demise of this country as we know it as our freedoms and independence are whittled away. This election is a confirmation of those predictions.

The Founding Fathers were well aware of the problem. In 1814 John Adams wrote: “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”